JUDGMENT : 1. The matter came up for hearing on an early hearing application No. 1/24, which is allowed. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard today. 3. The present appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant Madan @ Madanlal against the judgment dated 14.02.2019 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Balotra (for short “the trial court”) in Sessions Case No. 16/2016 convicting and sentencing him for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 304 Part-I IPC. 4. The brief facts noticed by this Court are that on 15.11.2015, complainant Narpatsingh S/o Devisingh submitted a written report at Police Station, Balotra stating that on the same date i.e. 15.11.2015 at about 6.15 PM, he and Narpatsingh S/o Bheekhsingh were going from New Bus Stand Balotra and as they reached in front of the shop of Madanlal, Barber, he came running outside holding Scissor in his hand and attacked Narpat Singh with the Scissor. In an injured condition, Narpatsingh was taken to hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. Upon this report, an FIR No. 509/2015 was registered at Police Station, Balotra. After Investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 341 IPC. 5. During trial, the trial court examined 12 prosecution witnesses and exhibited 30 documents as Ex.1 to Ex.30. Learned trial court while discussing the evidence rendered dealt with the allegation while touching the important jurisprudential aspects of interesting witnesses, partisan witnesses, previous animosity, premeditated crime, minor contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the motive behind the crime etc., and convicted the accused-appellant Madanlal by passing a well reasoned judgment dated 14.02.2019 for the offences punishable under Section 341 and 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced him to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-and in default to further undergo 15 days' additional simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC, and life imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year additional simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 6. 500/-and in default to further undergo 15 days' additional simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC, and life imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year additional simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant makes a categorical statement that he does not wish to contest the matter on the conviction of the appellant on merits and merely wants to address this Court on the point of proportionality for the sentence arrived at by the learned trial court. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that the corollary of the incident happening at 6.15 in the evening at a bus stand where the convict appellant had a Barber Shop arising out of an altercation with some previous dispute and resulting into three sharp edged stab wounds caused by the present appellant while using Scissor which he must have been using as a tool in the Barber Shop, speaks volume about the nature of the crime. He further submits that the appellant does not have any previous criminal antecedents and has undergone custody of about 10 years and a few days and deserves the possible minimum punishment. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant who was a poor man earning his livelihood by working at a Barber Shop ought to be dealt with leniently. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has undergone the custody of 10 years which is very long time of incarceration that he has suffered and once the legislature did not prescribe any minimum punishment under Section 304 Part-I IPC, then, it is always open for the Court to weigh the proportionality and grant appropriate relief to the appellant by partly allowing the appeal in terms of the sentence already undergone by the accused-appellant. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the foundation of the judgment convicting the present appellant is perfectly as per the criminal jurisprudence and once the same has not been contested by the appellant, therefore, no further address upon the same is called for. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the foundation of the judgment convicting the present appellant is perfectly as per the criminal jurisprudence and once the same has not been contested by the appellant, therefore, no further address upon the same is called for. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that since offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC has been made out, therefore, a strong punishment needs to be undergone by the appellant and the life imprisonment imposed by the learned trial court was justified. 8. We have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. 9. This Court noticed the facts that the appellant being a worker in a Barber Shop at the Bus Stand caused three stab wounds by his tool namely Scissor upon the body of the deceased Narpatsingh which was no doubt a heinous crime, however, this Court also noticed that neither the appellant has any previous criminal antecedents nor the crime was committed with such kind of deadly weapon or with such premeditation that it could fall under the definition of an organized and well intended crime. The judgment impugned passed by the trial court is well reasoned but examining the appeal only with a limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant to partly allow the appeal with the sentence already undergone while upholding the conviction, is an intervention which is called for. The factual matrix where a Barber Shop worker used his regular tool at a public place in front of his shop at 6.15 PM mitigates the gravity of crime and brings it in the purview of a crime having been committed without help of any regular weapon or any previous premeditation. 10. In the given backdrop, the present appeal is partly allowed and while making a limited intervention as prayed by learned counsel for the appellant and while sustaining the impugned judgment of conviction, this Court intervenes in the sentence and deems it appropriate to substitute the sentence of life imprisonment to a sentence of 10 years which the appellant has already undergone. Thus, the appellant's sentence is declared to be complete. However, the fine amount shall be required to be paid by the appellant. Once the sentence is satisfied/ discharged, the appellant shall be set at liberty immediately. Thus, the appellant's sentence is declared to be complete. However, the fine amount shall be required to be paid by the appellant. Once the sentence is satisfied/ discharged, the appellant shall be set at liberty immediately. This Court also kept in mind while passing the above order that the appellant is at present lodged at Open Air Jail which itself indicates the most liberal parameters of imprisonment which the appellant is undergoing due to his good conduct at this juncture. The record of the trial court be sent back.